“Each and every redistribution of the images causes a distinct injury to the victim,” Marsh told The Register. “It’s a very deliberate act that they choose when they go seek images of my client out.”
Marsh and other child victim advocates argue that the requirement to prove the convicted person proximately caused the damages, applies only to this last catchall item. The other losses need only be established by a preponderance of the evidence, which is almost always satisfied by a conviction that includes one or more images of the victim.